In Depth

The Indiana Court of Appeals has found a man’s three convictions on non-payment of child support for his three children
don't violate double jeopardy principles, even though that issue is currently pending in another case before the Indiana
Supreme Court.

In Felix C. Sickels v. State of Indiana, No. 20A03-1102-CR-66, the appellate court affirmed and
reversed in part a case involving a northern Indiana man’s nonpayment of child support for his three children.

The non-support stems back to child support payments that Sickel didn’t make between 1997 and 1999, involving three
children he and his wife had before their divorce in 1992. He lived out of state and the wife and children remained in Goshen,
and Sickel was ordered to pay $118 in child support each week by a civil support order. But he didn’t pay that amount
and was charged with three felony counts of non-payment in September 2001, each count alleging he accumulated an arrearage
in excess of $15,000 per child.

Sickels was arrested in Michigan first in 2002 and three more times through the years, but released after Michigan authorities
either didn’t notify Indiana about the arrest or he wasn’t extradited. Eventually, Sickels was brought back to
Indiana in July 2010 on the felony non-support charges, and he was convicted at a bench trial, sentenced and ordered to pay
more than $80,000 in unpaid support.

On appeal, Sickels argues that his conviction on three counts of non-payment involving one civil support order is a double
jeopardy violation. The appellate court pointed out that Sickels is subject to the child support non-payment laws in place
in the late 1990s, requiring a per-dependent arrearage of at least $10,000 to support each alleged Class C felony. Although
this is an issue in a related child support payment and double jeopardy case currently before the Indiana Supreme Court in
Sanjari v. State, 942 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), the Court of Appeals panel concluded that in the context of double
jeopardy Sickels’ three convictions do not violate the same elements test of the U.S. Constitution or the Indiana Constitution’s
statutory elements test.

The court affirmed Sickels’ convictions and part of his sentence, but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions
to clarify the restitution order because it is inconsistent with what was said at the sentencing hearing.

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.